Thesis social and cognitive competencies Philips ETG libra…essay.utwente.nl/57722/1/scriptie_Cramer_van_der_Zwaal.pdfCarin Cramer Marieke van der Zwaal 5 Acknowledgement In March

Social and cognitive competencies

in the semiconductor and medical device market

Carin Cramer Marieke van der Zwaal


2


3

Social and cognitive competencies in the semiconductor and the medical device market

A theoretical overview of the concept of competency and a case study for engineers of Philips Enabling Technologies Group

BSc. Carin Cramer Drs. Marieke van der Zwaal

University of Twente, Enschede October 2006

Company supervisors: Drs. Vlok van Harten Ir. Rob Brinker University supervisors: Dr. Ida Wognum

Prof. Dr. Jan Kees Looise


4


5

Acknowledgement In March 2006, we started our graduation project for Philips Enabling Technologies Group in Almelo. This thesis focused on the social and cognitive competencies that engineers of Philips Enabling Technology Group need to possess when working in the semiconductor and medical device market. The research became a great learning experience in which we could explore the different aspects of working in a technical environment. This thesis was not possible without the contribution of employees and clients of Philips Enabling Technology Group and supervisors of the University of Twente. First, we would like to thank our supervisors of Philips Enabling Technology Group, Rob Brinker and Vlok van Harten, who provided us feedback about the research and insight in the organisation. During the research we worked at the engineering department in Almelo and therefore, we would like to thank the engineers of the department. We appreciated their hospitality and we would like to thank them for making our lunch breaks so pleasant. We are really going to miss the lunch walks and talks. For the thesis, the managers of Eindhoven contributed to the research. We would like to thank Peter ten Brinke and Peter Schuerman, who were interested in our project and provided us useful support during the project. Also, we would like to thank the different engineers and managers of Philips Enabling Technology Group and Philips Medical Systems and the managers of Advanced Semiconductor Materials Europe, who provided us information about the required competencies. Finally, we would like to thank our supervisors from the University of Twente, Ida Wognum and Jan Kees Looise, who supported us during the project with scientifically advice and provided us with feedback to write this thesis report. Enschede, October 2006, Carin Cramer Marieke van der Zwaal


6


7

Summary Philips Enabling Technology Group in Almelo and Eindhoven wants to spread its activities over another market then the semiconductor market. The medical device market is considered to be an interesting market and Philips Medical Systems is approached as a potential partner. However, Philips Medical Systems concluded that Philips Enabling Technology Group is not the right partner yet, because they are not aware of the capabilities of its engineers and of the capabilities that potential clients demand. Previous research revealed that engineers of Philips Enabling Technology Group do possess the needed functional competencies to work in the medical device market, but that Philips Enabling Technology Group is not aware of the social and cognitive competencies of engineers. This thesis was focused on investigating what social and cognitive competencies engineers of Philips Enabling Technology Group need to possess in the semiconductor market and the medical device market. A competency is reflected in this research as the underlying attributes of behaviour (paragraph 3.2). The described problem has resulted in the following research question: Which social and cognitive competencies do the engineers of Philips Enabling Technology Group need to possess to operate in the semiconductor and medical device market? The differences in competencies between Philips Enabling Technology Group and Philips Medical Systems are that the social competency empathy and the cognitive competency knowledge of the medical device market, which are only important for the medical device market. This is important, because it reflects the difference in end-user in both markets. In the medical device market the end-user is the patient or medical personnel whereas an operator is the end-user in the semiconductor market. This difference in end-user reflects a different approach of the engineer towards his work, which makes the ability to empathise important. Also, the engineers need knowledge of the medical device market, which can be indicated as the specific characteristics of the medical device market. Similarities in competencies in both markets are the social competencies networking, collaboration, communication, flexible behaviour and project management and the cognitive competencies problem solving, conceptual thinking, self-development, awareness, knowledge of the own organisation and knowledge of the client that are relevant for both markets (chapter 7). These similarities indicate that engineers, who operate in one of these markets, need to possess the same competencies. The work of an engineer does not differ on other social or cognitive competencies, which indicates that the work of an engineer can be described as the same for both markets with the exception of the competencies empathy and knowledge of the medical market. These competencies are reflected in a specific competency model for each market (sub-paragraphs 5.4.3 and 6.4.3) and in a final competency model for both markets (paragraph 7.3). This final competency model provides the answer to the research question. It can be concluded that the social and cognitive competencies of engineers describe the capabilities of the engineers, which potential client demand. Also, this research provides Philips Enabling Technology Group the possibility to explore which social and cognitive competencies its engineers possess. However, the individual capabilities of the engineers are not defined yet and therefore the engineers have to be assessed on the social and cognitive competencies to meet the requirements of Philips Medical Systems. To fulfil this need, Philips Enabling Technology Group is recommended to develop an assessment tool, which is based on the final competency model, taking the recommendations of chapter 8 into account. However, this assessment is not sufficient enough to operate in the medical device market and therefore the social competency empathy and the cognitive competency knowledge of the medical market have to be developed by the engineers according to the recommendations, as described in chapter 9. From this can be concluded that in case Philips Enabling Technology Group assesses the individual engineers and develops the social and cognitive competencies, Philips Enabling Technology Group can be regarded as the right partner for Philips Medical Systems.


8


9

Summary (in Dutch) Philips Enabling Technology Group in Almelo en Eindhoven wil zijn activiteiten spreiden over andere markten dan de semi-conductor markt. Hiervoor wordt de medische markt als interessante markt bevonden en Philips Medical Systems is benaderd als potentiële klant voor deze markt. Philips Medical Systems heeft echter geconcludeerd dat Philips Enabling Technology Group nog geen goede partner is doordat Philips Enabling Technology Group niet op de hoogte is van de competenties van de eigen ingenieurs en de eisen die worden gesteld aan bekwaamheden van ingenieurs door potentiële klanten. Uit vorig onderzoek is gebleken dat de ingenieurs de functionele competenties bezitten om in medische markt te werken, maar dat Philips Enabling Technology Group zich niet bewust is van de sociale en cognitieve competenties van de ingenieurs. Dit onderzoek richt zich op het onderzoeken van de benodigde cognitieve en sociale competenties binnen de semi-conductor en de medische markt voor de ingenieurs van Philips Enabling Technology Group. Een competentie wordt in dit onderzoek gedefinieerd als de onderliggende attributen van gedrag (paragraaf 3.2). Het beschreven probleem heeft geleid tot de volgende onderzoeksvraag: Welke sociale en cognitieve competenties moeten ingenieurs van Philips Enabling Technology Group bezitten om in de semi-conductor markt en de medische markt te kunnen werken? Het verschil in competenties tussen Philips Enabling Technology Group en Philips Medical Systems is dat de sociale competentie inlevingsvermogen en de cognitieve competentie kennis van de medische markt alleen van belang zijn in de medische markt. Dit is belangrijk, omdat het verschil in eindgebruiker hierin naar voren komt. In the medische markt is de eindgebruiker een patiënt of medisch personeel terwijl een operator de eindgebruiker in de semi-conductor markt is. Het verschil in eindgebruiker geeft aan dat de ingenieur een andere benadering naar de werkzaamheden moet hebben wat het vermogen om in te leven belangrijk maakt. Daarnaast heeft de ingenieur kennis van de medische markt nodig die wordt veroorzaakt door de specifieke karakteristieken van de medische markt. Overeenkomsten in competenties tussen beide markten zijn de sociale competenties netwerken, samenwerken, communicatie, flexibel gedrag en project management en de cognitieve competenties probleem oplossen, conceptueel denken, zelfontwikkeling, bewustzijn, kennis van de eigen organisatie en kennis van de organisatie van de klant zijn belangrijk in beide markten (hoofdstuk 7). De overeenkomsten geven aan dat ingenieurs deze moeten bezitten om te werken in beide markten. Het werk van een ingenieur kan beschreven worden als hetzelfde voor beide markten met uitzondering van de competenties inlevingsvermogen en kennis van de medische markt. Deze competenties zijn opgenomen in de specifieke competentie modellen voor elke markt (subparagraaf 5.4.3 en 6.4.3) en in het definitieve competentie model voor beide markten (paragraaf 7.3). Het definitieve competentie model beantwoord hiermee de onderzoeksvraag. Er kan geconcludeerd worden dat de sociale en cognitieve competenties van ingenieurs de bekwaamheden van ingenieurs beschrijven die potentiële klanten belangrijk vinden. Tevens biedt dit onderzoek Philips Enabling Technology Group de mogelijkheid om de sociale en cognitieve competenties van de ingenieurs te onderzoeken. Philips Enabling Technology Group is zich echter niet bewust van de individuele competenties en daarom moet vast gesteld worden welke sociale en cognitieve competenties de ingenieurs bezitten om te voldoen aan de eisen van Philips Medical Systems. Philips Enabling Technology Group wordt geadviseerd om een assessment instrument te ontwikkelen die gebaseerd op het definitieve competentie model waarbij de aanbevelingen van hoofdstuk 8 in acht genomen moeten worden. Deze assessment is echter niet voldoende voor Philips Enabling Technology Group om in de medische markt te opereren en daarom moeten de sociale competentie inlevingsvermogen en de cognitieve competentie kennis van de medische markt ontwikkeld worden door de ingenieurs zoals beschreven in hoofdstuk 9. Op basis hiervan kan geconcludeerd worden dat wanneer Philips Enabling Technology Group de competenties van de individuele ingenieurs vaststelt en de sociale en cognitieve competenties ontwikkelt, Philips Enabling Technology Group beschouwt kan worden als een geschikte partner Philips Medical Systems.


10


11

Table of content 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 15 2. Research context.............................................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Philips Enabling Technology Group ........................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Philips Enabling Technology Group Almelo and Eindhoven ................................................ 18 2.1.2 Engineering ............................................................................................................................ 18

2.2 Semiconductor market................................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Medical device market ................................................................................................................ 19 2.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 19

3. Competencies further defined ........................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Emergence of competency .......................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Competency and competence...................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Approaches............................................................................................................................. 22

3.3 Changeability and importance of competencies.......................................................................... 23 3.4 Competency levels ...................................................................................................................... 24

3.4.1 Core competencies ................................................................................................................. 24 3.4.2 Organisational competencies.................................................................................................. 25 3.4.3 Individual competencies......................................................................................................... 25

3.5 Competency models .................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.1 Background competency models ........................................................................................... 25 3.5.2 Generic competency models .................................................................................................. 26 3.5.3 Specific competency models .................................................................................................. 26

3.6 Functional, social, cognitive and meta-competencies ................................................................. 27 3.6.1 Functional competencies ........................................................................................................ 28 3.6.2 Social competencies ............................................................................................................... 28 3.6.3 Cognitive competencies ......................................................................................................... 29 3.6.4 Meta-competencies ................................................................................................................ 29

3.7 Choices for competency research model..................................................................................... 30 3.8 Defining the competency research model ................................................................................... 31

3.8.1 Social competencies ............................................................................................................... 31 3.8.2 Cognitive competencies ......................................................................................................... 33 3.8.3 Competency research model .................................................................................................. 35

3.9 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 35 4. Research methodology .................................................................................................................... 37

4.1 Research objective and research questions.................................................................................. 37 4.2 Research design: qualitative multi case study ............................................................................. 37 4.3 Research process method ............................................................................................................ 38 4.4 Data collection method................................................................................................................ 39 4.5 Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 40

4.5.1 Interview types ....................................................................................................................... 40 4.5.2 Construction interview protocols ........................................................................................... 40 4.5.3 Procedure interviews .............................................................................................................. 43

4.6 Selection respondents .................................................................................................................. 43 4.6.1 Specifying competency research model ................................................................................. 43 4.6.2 Education................................................................................................................................ 44 4.6.3 Member check........................................................................................................................ 44 4.6.4 Refinement specific competency model................................................................................. 44

4.7 Description of participants .......................................................................................................... 44


12

4.7.1 Specifying competency research model ................................................................................. 44 4.7.2 Education................................................................................................................................ 45 4.7.3 Member check........................................................................................................................ 45 4.7.3 Refinement specific competency model................................................................................. 45

4.8 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 45 4.9 Reliability and validity of the research........................................................................................ 47 4.10 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 47

5. Results semiconductor market ....................................................................................................... 49

5.1 Analysis results specifying competency research model ............................................................ 49 5.1.1 Analysis social competencies................................................................................................. 49 5.1.2 Analysis cognitive competencies ........................................................................................... 55

5.2 Development of specific competency model .............................................................................. 62 5.2.1 Social competencies ............................................................................................................... 62 5.2.2 Cognitive competencies ......................................................................................................... 64 5.2.3 Relevance functions of respondents ....................................................................................... 66 5.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 66

5.3 Results member check................................................................................................................. 66 5.4 Results refinement specific competency model .......................................................................... 67

5.5.1 Analysis social competencies................................................................................................. 67 5.5.2 Analysis cognitive competencies ........................................................................................... 67 5.3.3 Final specific competency model ........................................................................................... 68

5.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 69 6. Results medical device market ....................................................................................................... 71

6.1 Analysis specifying competency research model........................................................................ 71 6.1.1Analysis social competencies.................................................................................................. 71 6.1.2 Analysis cognitive competencies ........................................................................................... 76

6.2 Development specific competency model................................................................................... 80 6.2.1 Social competencies ............................................................................................................... 80 6.2.2 Cognitive competencies ......................................................................................................... 81 6.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 83

6.3 Results education......................................................................................................................... 83 6.4 Results refinement....................................................................................................................... 84

6.4.1 Document analysis ................................................................................................................. 84 6.4.2 Analysis social competencies................................................................................................. 84 6.4.3 Analysis cognitive competencies ........................................................................................... 85 6.4.4 Final specific competency model ........................................................................................... 86

6.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 88 7. Cross-case analysis .......................................................................................................................... 89

7.1 Cross-case-analysis ..................................................................................................................... 89 7.1.1 Analysis differences social competencies .............................................................................. 89 7.1.2 Analysis differences cognitive competencies......................................................................... 90 7.1.3 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 91

7.2 Final competency model ............................................................................................................. 91 7.2.1 Differences semiconductor and medical device market......................................................... 93

7.3 Defining the competencies of the final competency model ........................................................ 93 7.3.1 Social competencies defined .................................................................................................. 93 7.3.2 Cognitive competencies defined ............................................................................................ 95

7.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 96


13

8. Competency management and assessment.................................................................................... 97 8.1 Competency management ........................................................................................................... 97 8.2 Competency assessment .............................................................................................................. 98

8.2.1 Constraints of assessment....................................................................................................... 98 8.2.2 Assessment instruments ......................................................................................................... 99 8.2.3 Assessment tool.................................................................................................................... 100 8.2.4 Assessment for development................................................................................................ 101

8.3 Implementation of competency management............................................................................ 102 8.4 Further recommendations.......................................................................................................... 102 8.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 103

9. Development of competencies....................................................................................................... 105

9.1 Competency development ......................................................................................................... 105 9.2 Differences in competencies ..................................................................................................... 105 9.3 Learning types and interventions .............................................................................................. 106

9.3.1 Interventions social and cognitive competencies ................................................................. 107 9.4 Development of the competencies empathy and knowledge of the medical market................. 107 9.5 Constraints competency development....................................................................................... 108

9.5.1 Social and cognitive competencies further defined into the layers of the iceberg structure 109 9.5.2 Social and cognitive competencies described according to changeability ........................... 110

9.6 Implementation competency development................................................................................ 111 9.6.1 Steps to implement competency development ..................................................................... 112 9.6.2 Development of the management......................................................................................... 113

9.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 114 10. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................... 115

10.1 Review of findings .................................................................................................................. 115 10.1.1 Context exploration and literature study ............................................................................ 115 10.1.2 Semiconductor market........................................................................................................ 115 10.1.3 Medical device market ....................................................................................................... 116 10.1.4 Final competency model .................................................................................................... 116

10.2 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 117 10.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 117

10.3.1 Using competency model ................................................................................................... 117 10.3.2 Medical device market ....................................................................................................... 118 10.3.3 Further research.................................................................................................................. 119

11. Discussion and reflection ............................................................................................................ 121 11.1 Methodological aspects ........................................................................................................... 121

11.1.1 Data collection method....................................................................................................... 121 11.1.2 Construction of interview protocols ................................................................................... 121 11.1.3 Selection of respondents..................................................................................................... 122 11.1.4 Data analysis method ......................................................................................................... 122 11.1.5 Reliability and validity ....................................................................................................... 123

11.2 Usability of the competency model......................................................................................... 123 11.3 Involvement and implementation ............................................................................................ 124

References .......................................................................................................................................... 125


14

Appendices Appendix 1: Social and cognitive competencies in literature ........................................................ 133 Appendix 2: Interview protocol work of engineer (in Dutch) ....................................................... 135 Appendix 3: Interview protocol specific competency model semiconductor market (in Dutch) 137 Appendix 4: Interview protocol specific competency model medical device market (in Dutch) 139 Appendix 5: Interview protocol education (in Dutch) ................................................................... 140 Appendix 6: Interview protocol refinement specific competency model semiconductor market (in Dutch) ........................................................................................................................................... 141 Appendix 7: Interview protocol refinement specific competency model medical device market (in Dutch) ........................................................................................................................................... 143 Appendix 14: Analysis framework .................................................................................................. 146 Appendix 15: Within-case analysis semiconductor market (in Dutch) ........................................ 150 Appendix 16: Within-case analysis medical device market (in Dutch) ........................................ 158 Appendix 17: Within-case analysis education (in Dutch) .............................................................. 166 Appendix 18: Final competency model including definitions........................................................ 168 Appendix 19: Assessment items ....................................................................................................... 173 Appendix 20: Interventions .............................................................................................................. 177 Appendix 21: Development competency plan social and cognitive competencies ....................... 181


15

1. Introduction Philips Enabling Technology Group (ETG) is a Machine Factory that produces machines or parts of machines for the semiconductor market. Their clients will produce semiconductors from which eventually chips for electronic devices will be produced. The semiconductor market can be described as uncertain and unstable, because the market highly fluctuates and has a cyclic character. Next to this, Philips ETG is highly dependent on one client that is responsible for a big part of the revenue of Philips ETG. This situation forces Philips ETG to spread its activities over other markets. The medical device market has similar characteristics as the semiconductor market. It requires high technology products and entails the same kind of technology as the semiconductor market. In addition, the medical device market it is stable and therefore attractive for Philips ETG. A trend that can be observed in medical device market is the strategy to outsource different activities. Philips Medical Systems (MS), a potential client, is exploring this possibility in order to focus on their core business, which is the conceptual development of medical machines. Therefore, Philips MS is a potential partner for Philips ETG. However, in an audit in 2005 Philips MS concluded that Philips ETG is not the right partner at the moment (Philips Medical Systems, 2005). In order to become this partner Philips ETG has to change. One of these changes is the basis of this research. Based on an audit of Philips MS (2005), Philips MS concluded that Philips ETG does not know the capabilities of their engineers and is not aware of the capabilities that potential clients demand. Philips ETG agreed to strengthen the engineering capability to serve Philips MS better with products and services. To fulfil this agreement Yuting He, a student from the master program Business Administration of the University of Twente, conducted a research for her final thesis in 2005. This research focused on the characteristics of the medical device market, the semiconductor market, the engineering department of Philips ETG and the existing competencies of the engineers of Philips ETG. He (2005) concluded that the functional competencies of engineers to operate in the medical device market are available within Philips ETG. However, He (2005) concluded that the social, cognitive and meta-competencies are not sufficiently available within the engineering department. Philips ETG was recommended to further investigate the social and cognitive competencies to clarify the difference between these competencies in the semiconductor market and medical device market. Philips ETG acknowledged the need to also investigate the social and cognitive competencies for the semiconductor market and therefore, this market was included in the research. The described situation and the recommendation of He (2005) are the starting point of this research and resulted in the following research question: Which social and cognitive competencies do the engineers of Philips ETG need to possess to operate in the semiconductor market and medical device market? The research question will be investigated with the use of a competency research model. The development of this competency research model will be explained in chapter 3 of this thesis. The research context will be explored with the use different of documents and this will be explained in chapter 2. The content of the following two chapters and the connection of these chapters is presented in figure 1 on the next page. In chapter 4 the research methodology is explained followed by the presentation of the results in chapter 5 till 7.


16

Figure 1: Content chapters 2 and 3

Literature study focus on the competency concept and social and cognitive competency Chapter 3

Competency research model Chapter 3

Exploration of research context with the use of documents Chapter 2


17

2. Research context This chapter will explore the different contextual elements of the research for Philips ETG. Philips ETG and the characteristics of the locations of Philips ETG will be discussed. Next, the semiconductor market and medical device market will be described. For this contextual exploration, different documents and sources were used to retrieve information about Philips ETG, the semiconductor market and the work of an engineer of Philips ETG. These documents are the Strategy Plan of Philips ETG (Philips, 2003) and the department description of Engineering. Sources that were used are the global site and the intranet of Philips ETG.

2.1 Philips Enabling Technology Group Philips ETG is a worldwide equipment manufacturer that was founded in 1900 as the Machine Factory of the Philips organisation. In the first 80 years of its existence it supplied the industrial mechanisation and tooling throughout the Philips organisation. However, in the 1980s the circumstances changed and, as a consequence, caused a change for customers of Philips ETG. From that moment on Philips ETG started offering solutions for Philips and for external customers. Philips ETG also started to deliver complete systems instead of components. To reflect these capabilities better, the name Enabling Technologies Group was chosen in 2000. Philips ETG was formed consisting of six factories in four locations: Almelo and Eindhoven in the Netherlands, Singapore and in Suzhou in Asia. Philips ETG now operates in the semiconductor market as a system supplier. This means that Philips ETG is responsible for the value chain from engineering through parts production, assembly and testing. The core activity of Philips ETG is the supply of extremely high-technology professional equipment to the global semiconductor equipment market. Philips ETG does not have any products of its own and does not apply for any product patents, instead it makes the products for its clients and applies for process patents. To describe what the focus of Philips ETG is the mission and vision will be given. These are derived from the values of Philips, which are (Philips, 2003):

• Delight customers; • Deliver on commitments; • Develop people; • Depend on each other.

The mission of Philips ETG is: ‘ETG offers its customers the ability to concentrate on their core-activities by organising their integral production process, lower their break-even point and provide them with the needed flexibility for utilising their market opportunities. ETG serves its customers in a pro-active way with high end manufacturing technology, product and production engineering in combination with excellent supply chain management on a global scale’ (Philips, 2003). The vision of Philips ETG is: ‘ETG will be the largest world-class engineering and manufacturing company, operating world-wide, employing committed people and using outstanding suppliers, providing its customers in the semiconductor equipment business and high-tech capital equipment industries with innovative and unique technological solutions and logistic services, delivering substantial profitable growth and enhancing shareholder value’ (Philips, 2003). Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven do not have a different scope within the semiconductor market, but the activities differ per location. In the next sub-paragraphs a description of Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven will be given.


18

2.1.1 Philips Enabling Technology Group Almelo and Eindhoven The headquarters of Philips ETG is settled in Eindhoven. The departments of Philips ETG in Eindhoven are Systems/Parts, Projects and the Campus Research Centre. The product-units Systems/Parts of Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven are the units that operate in the semiconductor equipment market and in professional industrial equipment market. Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven can be characterised as contract manufacturers, which means that they deliver products on contract to their customers. The focus of Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven is to offer customers systems that will lower their breakeven point by organising integral supply chain and manufacturing process in the broadest sense. Therefore, Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven will focus on the following activities: supplying high-end technology systems and modules with high precision and engineering support. Because of the fact that customers know and understand their product well they could also produce the product themselves. Therefore, the customers of Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven can be their main competitors. However, Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven solves this problem by excelling in certain areas and being a good partner for their customers, which makes it possible to develop the product better or cheaper. The difference between Philips ETG Almelo and Eindhoven is that some activities are only possible in Almelo or Eindhoven. Some machines are only located in a certain factory or a location is specialised in a certain technology. To provide the clients of Philips ETG with better products and services the engineering department was created. The engineers of Philips ETG provide services to the clients to solve problems in the design and the production of a product. This engineering department is described in the next sub-paragraph.

2.1.2 Engineering The department Technology & Development (T&D) consist of three engineering groups: Semiconductor, Medical & Analytical and Mechanisation. These groups are located in Almelo and Eindhoven. In this research T&D will be referred to as the engineering department. Engineering can be described as the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems with as result the design, production and operation of useful objects or processes (Wikipedia, 2006). As described, the engineering department of Philips ETG came into existence to fulfil wishes of clients to look at the cost price of products, to investigate if a product can be made and to optimise and adjust the design of clients. This service of the engineering department can support the whole or part of the lifecycle of products. Activities of the engineers are: product creation, design for excellence, product introduction, tooling, sustaining and value engineering. Changes in the production process and products will have the starting point at the engineering department and therefore, the engineering department can be an initiator for changes within the organisation. Thus, strategy changes within Philips ETG should first take place within the engineering department.

2.2 Semiconductor market As described, the semiconductor market is the target market of Philips ETG. Within this market semiconductors are fabricated. A semiconductor is a material with an electrical conductivity that is intermediate between that of an insulator and a conductor (Wikipedia, 2006). From this material chips for different machines and equipment will be made and for example used in laptops or radio’s. The semiconductor market can be characterised as very uncertain and unstable, because of high fluctuations in investments. Sometimes it swings between 60% plus to 30% minus. Another threat is that Philips ETG has a few customers who buy the equipment and fabricate semiconductors. For example, Philips ETG Almelo is dependent on one customer who is responsible for nearly 70% of the revenue of Philips ETG (Philips, 2003). Because of this unstable character, Philips ETG wants to spread activities over other markets. It focuses on a market that requires high technology products and entails the same kind of technologies


19

compared to the semiconductor market. The medical device market seems to be a good potential market for Philips ETG, as mentioned before. This market is described in the next paragraph.

2.3 Medical device market The medical device market produces medical equipments that are designed to aid the diagnosis and treatment of medical problems. The basic types of equipment are: diagnostic equipment, therapeutic equipment, life-support equipment, medical monitors and medical laboratory equipment (Wikipedia, 2006). Because these machines are always necessary to diagnose and treat medical problems, the market is not highly influenced by economic growth or decrease. A potential client for Philips ETG in this market is Philips Medical Systems (MS). Philips MS a supplier of diagnostic imaging equipment, information technology and supporting services for healthcare applications. This equipment and technology supports the patient care from diagnosis to treatment. Products that are manufactured by Philips MS are for example Cardio/Vascular X-ray.

2.4 Summary In this chapter the context of the research is presented. Philips ETG as organisation and in specific the locations Almelo and Eindhoven are described. The engineering department of Philips ETG is described, because the research focuses on the engineers that work within this department. Also, the semiconductor and medical device market are presented to explain the context. Competencies of the engineers are the main focus in this research, as described in chapter 1. Further explanation of the concept of competency will be provided in the following chapter.


20


21

3. Competencies further defined In this chapter different aspects and ideas of the concept of competency will be described to provide a theoretical background for the research. Exploring the insights in literature provides a competency research model, which will be used to investigate competencies. This chapter will clarify the concept competency, describes different competency models, defines social and cognitive competencies and provides a competency research model based on this information.

3.1 Emergence of competency The concept of competency has become important in the previous century, which is caused by the demand that employees are asked to work with large amounts of information (Skyrme, 1997). This information has to be combined, interpreted and this has to lead to new knowledge and developments (Skyrme, 1997). In the knowledge economy of today the knowledge of employees has become more important and the competitive advantage of organisations must now be achieved by the added value of knowledge to the products (Harrison & Kessels, 2004). Knowledge development and using knowledge in a appropriate way has now become an important issue for the survival of organisations. Harrison and Kessels (2004) describe that personal knowledge is unique and therefore difficult to copy by other organisations. This makes it more important for an organisation to use and develop knowledge. Knowledge does not have a static character anymore and therefore a different approach towards knowledge in organisations is necessary (FEC, 2003). Knowledge is becoming valuable when it fits in the strategic direction of an organisation and becomes utilised in processes, products and services (FEC, 2003). Hence, it is important for organisations to maximise the knowledge productivity, instead of enlarging knowledge. In this context, knowledge can be considered as competencies, because it describes that competencies can be seen as an important tool for making the knowledge of use for the organisation (Keursten, 2000). The changing environment of organisations causes that the demands of an organisation cannot be separated from competencies (Van der Ven, 2000). In this sense, competencies are viewed as organisational properties. Van der Ven (2000) also states that an organisation has to make sure that it is prepared for the demands of the future and therefore, has to obtain the right competencies today. The competencies that an organisation has today, determines the success of the products or services of tomorrow (Van der Ven, 2000). No longer do market positions determine how long an organisation will survive, but the capacity to create, guarantee and use unique knowledge as an input for services or products determine this (Teece, 1998). This changing environment of organisations demands flexibility, employability and the emergence of knowledge as a production factor (Garavan & McGuire, 2001). This puts a different demand on employees (Garavan & McGuire, 2001) and the concept of competency is viewed as a response to this demand. A further explanation of competencies will be provided in the following paragraphs.

3.2 Competency and competence After the emergence of the concept of competency different ideas about the concept became observable. A variety of definitions were formulated and different approaches towards the concept became apparent. Within this paragraph a selection of definitions is provided to establish an understanding of the concept of competency and two main competency approaches will be described.

3.2.1 Definitions In literature many authors have contributed to the conceptual exploration of the term competency. However, a single definition that is accepted by everyone is not yet the case. Therefore, some definitions and ideas of competency will be described to provide a theoretical understanding of the concept.


22

Along with the term competency the term competence is used and these differ in definition. Moore, Cheng and Dainty (2002) defined the term competence as what people need to be able to do to perform a job well. It refers to the range of skills, which are satisfactorily performed by the employee (Rowe, 1995). The emphasis is on doing, on the question ‘What can an employee do?’ (Rowe, 1995). Hoffmann (1999) explains that the term competence, has been used to refer to the meaning expressed as standards. Standards are the level to which an employee should perform his job. These standards should be achieved in order to perform sufficient. The term competency is defined by Moore, Cheng and Dainty (2002) as the behaviour(s) supporting an area of work. It refers to the behaviour adopted in competent performance (Rowe, 1995). The emphasis is on how employees do their work, on the question ‘How do they do their job?’(Rowe, 1995). Hoffmann (1999) explains that the term competency is used to refer to the meaning expressed as behaviours. It becomes clear that the term competence is focused on the demands of a certain job and the term competency emphasises the behaviour that is needed for the work. Two definitions will be given to provide an example about the difference in focus. The Training Standards Agency defines competence as: “.. an action, behaviour or outcome which the person should be able to demonstrate (Horton, 2000).” FEC (2003) describe competency as: “The capabilities of people which allow them to act correctly in common (professional or job-related) situations and these capabilities can be developed. It means that a person is capable of choosing and using the right procedures to achieve good results.”

3.2.2 Approaches The distinction between competence and competency can further be explained with the description of the different approaches towards the concept. Within the UK and Europe the term competence emerged. Competence focuses on the functional aspect of the concept (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005; Hoffmann, 1999; Iles, 1993; Mériot, 2005). Competence can be used as a measure for output of learning and can be expressed in a standard that should be reached in order to perform a task (Horton, 2000). Therefore, competences refer to the range of skills, which are satisfactorily performed (Rowe, 1995). The concept competency is found in the US literature and focuses on the behavioural aspect of it (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005; Hoffmann, 1999; Iles, 1993; Mériot, 2005). Competency is defined as the underlying attributes of a person and refers to the meaning expressed as behaviour (Hoffmann, 1999), as indicated in the previous sub-paragraph. Therefore, competency refers to the behaviour adopted in competent performance (Rowe, 1995). The difference between these two definitions is that the US approach focuses on searching excellent behaviour whereas the UK approach focuses on a systematic identification of the skills needed to perform a role (Horton, 2000). However, both ideas have the common purpose of improving the human performance at work (Hoffmann, 1999). This difference can also be expressed by input or output characteristics (Toolsema, 2003), which Hoffmann (1999) describes as the input-based or output-based approach. The input-based approach describes the underlying attributes, which lead to competent performance (Hoffmann, 1999). In contrary, the output-based approach describes specific performances and standards required (Hoffmann, 1999). This means that the input-based approach refers to the term competency and the US approach of competency. The output-based approach refers to the term competence and has a link with the UK approach. According to these approaches, complex jobs may best use an input-based approach, while simpler jobs can benefit from an output-based approach (Hoffmann, 1999). The different descriptions of competency caused that the term is not enough shaped to differ from other concepts like skills or knowledge (Mulder, 2000). Besides this, the UK and US approach focus on divers aspects. The chosen definition will determine the outcomes. Hoffmann (1999) concludes that


23

the rational of the use of the term competency will determine the definition. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the definition that helps to achieve the goals of the research. For this research the focus will be on the underlying attributes of the behaviour of engineers. The needed behaviour of engineers will be identified and explained. Also, the behaviour is described according to what every engineer should be able to do or demonstrate and is not compared to excellent behaviour. Therefore, the chosen term for this research is competency. In this paragraph it is made explicit what kind of approaches and definitions towards the concept of competency are used in literature. In the next paragraph, the different elements of competencies that can be found within the definition will be described.

3.3 Changeability and importance of competencies Both the US approach and the UK approach have in common that the elements knowledge, skills, attitude and other characteristics are part of the definition. These elements are also found in other definitions of competency (Schippmann, Ash, Carr, Hesketh, Pearlman, Battista, et al., 2000). Korthagen (2004) adds the element norms, values and concepts to it. These different elements can be divided into visible and non-visible elements. Competencies are presented in an iceberg structure in figure 2.

Figure 2: The human competency in an iceberg structure (Bergenhenegouwen, Mooijman & Tillema, 1999, p. 77)

The first layer ‘professional knowledge and skills’ is the visible top of the iceberg. This is the (instrumental) knowledge and skills that are important for the profession and that are necessary for adequately carrying out the task or function (Bergenhenegouwen, Horn & Mooijman, 2002). The second layer is the intermediate skills that are of use in multiple (job) situations (Ryan, 1991 in Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). These skills are also called ‘job skills’, which are hard to learn and are important for the flexibility and availability of the employee (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). The instrumental and intermediate skills together can be considered as the capability of the profession or function (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). The third layer is the norms, values, ethical issues and professional ethic of the organisation and of the group, which a person belongs to (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). This layer consists of a personal and professional framework where norms, values, ethical issues and professional ethic have received a specific place and where the personality is marked (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). These three layers form the professional qualities of a person.

Changeability Importance

Low

High

Professional qualities

Professional knowledge and skills

Intermediary skills

Values, norms, ethical issues, professional ethic

Self-perception, motives, effort, enthusiasm and persuasiveness Low

High


24

The last layer, and the less visible one, consists of personality characteristics. These characteristics determine the behaviour in specific situations (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). These aspects are not only hard to see, but are also hard to identify, develop and teach (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). The changeability and importance are contrary to each other as can be seen in figure 2. The more important an element is, the less changeable it is. This also means that the elements of the last two layers are harder to develop compared to the elements of the first two layers (Klarus, 2002). Elements like personal attitude, motivation and self-concept distinguish a successful employee from a not so successful employee (McClelland, 1993 in Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). In the following paragraph the different levels of competencies are explained.

3.4 Competency levels In literature different categorisations of competencies are mentioned. Van Assen (2000) makes a distinction between three levels of competencies in an organisation. These three levels of competencies, which are presented in figure 3, are the following:

• Strategic distinctive (core) competencies: the strategic ability to sustain the coordinated deployment of strategic assets in a way that helps the organisation to achieve its strategic goals;

• Organisational competencies: the specific way group and individual capabilities are linked and related to functional technological capabilities;

• Individual competencies: attributes of individual capabilities.

Figure 3: Three levels of competencies (Van Assen, 2000, p. 144)

These competencies can be seen as an oval, which has overlap in different competencies. Individual competencies can also been found in organisational competencies and both can be found within strategic distinctive (core) competencies. Individual and organisational competencies are needed to reach the strategic goals of an organisation. The following sub-paragraphs will further elaborate on the different competency levels.

3.4.1 Core competencies Strategic distinctive competencies, or core competencies, are the unique strategic ability of organisations to deliver products or services (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). It is difficult to copy from other organisations, it is constant and forms the basis of the increased perceived customer benefits of the organisation. The specialisation and the distinction of an organisation compared to other organisations are the core competencies of an organisation. Coyne, Hall, and Clifford (1997) propose that a core competency is a combination of complementary skills and knowledge embedded in a group or team that results in the ability to execute one or more critical processes to a world class standard. Hence, core competencies are the competencies of an organisation that provide competitive advantage. These competencies are hard to copy and therefore, can be a valuable asset of the organisation (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1999). Within the environment the core competency of an organisation

Individual competencies

Organisational competencies

Strategic Distinctive (Core) competencies


25

provides the opportunity to add specific knowledge to the products that cannot be copied by its competitors. For the development of core competencies a development approach should be used that focuses on hard to copy competencies of employees.

3.4.2 Organisational competencies Organisational competencies, or collective competencies, are a collective interdependent combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, motives and learning capabilities that allow a group to work in different situations (Teurlings, Vermeulen and Wiersma, 2002). The collective competencies can be labelled as team competencies. The ‘know what’ and the ‘know how’ of a specific group of an organisation forms the foundation of the organisation (Groeneveld, 2004). However, collective competencies are not the sum of individual competencies. When individuals or groups of employees work together it is possible to create surplus value (Teurlings, et al., 2002). These collective competencies will influence the core competencies of an organisation.

3.4.3 Individual competencies Individual competencies come from a behavioural sciences view (Van Baalen, 1999). Individual competencies are competencies as human qualities and skills. It is about specific knowledge and skills of employees in an organisation and fundamental and personality characteristics that are specific for an employee in all kinds of tasks and situations (Bergenhenegouwen et al., 2002). Individual competencies are derived from the identity, behaviour, inspiration, perception and beliefs of an individual (Groeneveld, 2004). Therefore, individual competencies are the responsibilities and qualifications of individual employees (Sluijs & Kluytmans, 1996). The unique combination of individual competencies can create an important competitive advantage (Teurlings et al., 2002). The combination of competencies can gain bigger or different results. This is reflected in the collective competencies.

3.5 Competency models The different competency levels, as described in the previous paragraph, can be found in different competency models. In this paragraph the background of competency models will be described. It is explained what a competency model is and what the goal of a competency model is. In addition, generic and specific models are described.

3.5.1 Background competency models Using competency models as the basis for human resource systems has become a worldwide trend (Lee & Wu, 2005). Competency models are sets of competencies, often organised into some groupings or clusters for a specific purpose and can be used to measure performance and to guide action (Lee & Wu, 2005). Sinnott, Madison and Pataki (2002) remark that competency models can be used to identify competencies, which employees need to have to improve performance in their current job or to prepare for other jobs. A competency model can be based on outstanding performance or average performance. In outstanding performance competencies are linked to the requirement to exhibit superior performance (Rowe, 1995). This means that outstanding employees have to define their behaviour to be used as a standard for other employees. In average performance it is made explicit what kind of performance an employee should be able to demonstrate to work on a specific task or job. Competency models can be used for different kind of goals. Rowe (1995) describes three different goals of competency models:

• Recruitment: models to help the organisation to identify suitable candidates at the recruitment stage. The purpose is to establish the ‘behaviour traits’ needed in a particular job and the extent to which different candidates possess these;

• Skill assessment: models to assess whether people are competent in their work. The aim is to determine whether an employee is working to particular standards;

• Development: models to help existing staff to develop. The aim is to assess individual strengths and weaknesses so that future development can be identified.


26

As can be seen, the perspective of the recruitment and development goal is future orientated whereas skill assessment focuses on the past or the present (Rowe, 1995). Also, the recruitment and development goal is based on the question ‘How do they do their job’ whereas the skills assessment is based on the question ‘What can an employee do?’ (Rowe, 1995). Rowe (1995) describes that the goal of recruitment and development is based on behaviours and therefore on competencies. Skill assessment is based on competences (Rowe, 1995). An organisation can start to develop a competency model after the goal of the model is made explicit, because a competency model can be used for different goals. A certain goal can change the impact of the selected competencies. In literature, generic and specific competency models can be found. The differences between generic and specific competency models will be explained in the following sections.

3.5.2 Generic competency models Generic competency models are based on the thought that learning takes place in a context and that competency exists of related competency aspects. This means that an overview of competencies is provided, which the employee has to develop to use in practice. These competency models are often static, mechanistic and seek to prescribe a fixed list of desirable competencies (Garavan & McGuire, 2001). The models can be seen as theoretical models and of general use for organisations. The models describe what has been successful behaviour in the past (Iles, 1993) and not what competencies are important to develop for the future benefit of the organisation. The generic model might not reflect the volatility of the business environment that demands organisations to constantly examining their need for competency (Iversen, 2000). The goal of a generic competency model can be that of development or recruitment. The list of competencies can be used for the development of current employees, but also for the selection of new employees. However, with the overview it is not possible to describe whether an employee is working to a particular standard. For example, Iversen (2000) compared the generic competency models of Boyatzis, Spencer and Spencer, Schroder and Dulewicz and concluded that five clusters of competencies are important in all competency models. These five clusters are (Iversen, 2000):

1. Intellectual/Information handling: how information is handled; 2. Achievement-/Result-orientation: how result-oriented an employee is; 3. Managing and leadership: how projects are leaded and managed; 4. Motivational/Interpersonal: what the motivation of the team is; 5. Intrapersonal: what the personality of an individual is.

This competency model focuses on superior managerial performance (Iversen, 2000). Although the authors use a different definition of the concept of competency it is possible to identify managerial competencies with the help of this model. It can be used for recruitment, because the competency model focuses on the identification of competencies.

3.5.3 Specific competency models Specific models, or organisation-specific models, are more expressive of the language, culture and situation of the organisation, although influenced by generic models (Iles, 1993). This means that specific models use the theory of generic models, but translate it to the specific situation of the organisation. This is done because organisations need a specific model to adapt to their situation. These models generally take account of the need for flexibility and openness to change (Garavan & McGuire, 2001). A specific model holds out the promise that it can capture some of the changes management competencies associate with transitions (Iles, 1993). Therefore, it focuses more on the future than generic models do. Briscoe and Hall (1999) argue that in practice it are competency models, which are too complex and can become mired down in overly detailed competency definitions. Specific models try to prevent this by using theory in practice. Iles (1993) argues that generic models can provide input for the development of organisation specific models. These specific models tend to be equally historic and retrospective (Iles, 1993). An advantage of a specific model is that it can be anchored in the organisation reality (Iles, 1993). It is therefore more applicable to the


27

organisation. However, it can be concluded that the development of a specific competency model is time-consuming. A specific competency model can be used for recruitment, skill assessment and development. It has the basis of a generic competency model, but can be used for specific situations. Therefore, skill assessment can also be the goal of a specific competency model. It can describe how an employee should be able to do a certain job and if an employee works to these standards. For example, Mansfield and Mitchell (1996) describe a dynamic job-competency model that describes competencies in terms of the execution (and not only knowledge) of labour acts or job roles (and not only specific skills and task) in a real work context. They describe occupational competencies that exist of certain skills (Mansfield & Mitchell, 1996):

• Task skills: routine skills that are used within clearly described tasks and that have a specific result or profit;

• Task management skills: skills that are used to deal with multiple task or that are necessary for additional responsibilities that have influence on routine activities;

• Contingency management skills: skills that give an answer to irregularity and disturbances in activities, procedures and work phases;

• Environment management skills: skills which reflect that the professional in less or more extent of his or her social environment.

In this competency model the competencies are not only related to what a manager should be able to do, but it also deals with the changes in the future. Therefore, it can be used for recruitment or development. Next to these examples, other competency models can be described. The competency model of Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005) focuses on the functional, social, cognitive and meta-competencies, which is presented in the next paragraph.

3.6 Functional, social, cognitive and meta-competencies A classification of competencies is the holistic competency model of Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005), which is presented in figure 4. The model is based on a typology in which a combination of the strengths of different approaches towards competency, as described in sub-paragraph 3.2.2, is used to provide the ultimate beneficiaries for those who are participating in learning at work (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). This helps to reflect the unity of competency and the difficulty of separating competencies in practice (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). The holistic typology is useful in understanding the combination of knowledge, skills and social competencies that are necessary for particular occupations (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Four different dimensions of competency are defined within the model: cognitive-, social-, functional- and meta-competencies. According to the typology, knowledge and understanding is captured by cognitive competency, skills is captured by functional competency and behavioural and attitudinal competencies are captured by social competency (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Meta-competency is concerned with facilitating the acquisition of the other substantive competencies (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Further explanation of the competency dimensions will be provided in the following sub-paragraphs. However, this typology does not take the complex character of competencies into account, because competency is about the combination of the different elements and is the added value of this combination. The separation of competency dimensions can be made in theory, but in practice this seems not be the case (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Therefore, the separation cannot be used as a strict distinction, but as a different focus for competencies. Hence, a tetrahedron representation of the model is more suitable, which is presented in figure 4 and described in the following sub-paragraphs.


28

Figure 4: Holistic model of competency (Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005, p. 40)

3.6.1 Functional competencies Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005) describe that skills are captured by functional competency, as described before. In the previous research He (2005) defined functional competencies as a description of something that a person who works in a given occupational area should be able to do and be able to demonstrate. He (2005) referred to functional competencies as the technical and mechanical knowledge. She concluded that the engineers of Philips ETG possess the following functional competencies: organisational/procedures, manufacture technology, mechatronica, software, norms and miscellaneous (He, 2005). However, this description of functional competencies does not focus on the skills that an engineer should possess, but only on the technical and mechanical knowledge that an engineer needs to have. Therefore, it does not describe how this knowledge should be demonstrated. Functional competencies are defined for this research as the technical skills that an engineer needs to possess and needs to demonstrate through his behaviour, because this research focuses on the underlying attributes of behaviour. The demonstration of behaviour will be described in depth in the social and cognitive competencies and therefore, the functional competencies of this research can be described as the technical knowledge of an engineer. This knowledge will not be taken into account in this research, because this is already made explicit for Philips ETG.

3.6.2 Social competencies Social competencies focus on the behavioural and attitudinal aspects that a person has to possess to work within a certain profession. Straka describes social competency as the willingness and ability to experience and shape relationships, to identify and understand benefits and tensions and to interact with others in a rational and conscientious way, including the development of social responsibility and solidarity (in Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Archan and Tutschek explain that social competency is largely concerned with dealing with others and is defined as the ability and willingness to cooperate, to interact with others responsibly and behave in a group and relationally oriented way (in Delamare le Deist & Winterton, 2005). Ruegg (2003) defines the concept as the ability to use the appropriate social skills in every aspect of life. The idea of skills is also found in the definition of Mallinckrodt and Wei (2005). They define social competencies as skills needed to recruit and maintain satisfying and supportive relationships (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005). The social competencies within this research will describe the behavioural and attitudinal aspects of the work of engineers. Therefore, social competencies can be described as the behaviour that one needs to have and needs to demonstrate to interact and cooperate with others and to build and sustain different relationships.

Meta- competency

Functional competency

Cognitive competency

Social competency


29

3.6.3 Cognitive competencies To understand what cognitive competencies are, it is useful to describe the concept of cognition. In psychology it is mentioned as a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, including thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem solving. These are higher-level functions of the brain and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning (Psychology, 2006). The use of cognition is reflected within the term cognitive competency. Cheetman and Chivers describe a cognitive competency as the possession of appropriate work related knowledge and the ability to put this into effective use (in He 2005). They describe that it includes the basic technical, contextual, conceptual and procedural knowledge required for the profession (Cheetman & Chivers, 1996). This same kind of definition is used by the University of Texas (2006) and focuses on cognitive competencies that address knowledge and intellectual skills. This concept of cognitive competencies is expanded by Kallenberg (2000), who describes cognitive competencies in education as competencies concerning the content of a course or as relevant information of a certain profession. Marlow, Bloss and Bloss (2000) expand the concept by mentioning that these competencies relate to thoughts and understanding. Next to these definitions, DeSimone (2002) refers to cognitive strategies instead of cognitive competencies. Cognitive strategies or strategic knowledge are skills that are used to control learning, thinking and remembering. Cognitive strategies allow us to determine what procedural knowledge and verbal information we need to perform a task (DeSimone, 2002). Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005) describe the concept as knowledge and understanding. Understanding can be described as not only the possession of knowledge as also the appropriately use of knowledge. Therefore, cognitive competencies refer to mental processes, the knowledge relevant for profession and the ability to use this knowledge in appropriate situations. In this research it is referred to as the knowledge that an engineer needs to perform his job.

3.6.4 Meta-competencies Meta-competency is a concept that is used as a sort of management competency. Ramaekers (2006) describes that meta-competencies refer to the ability to see the possibilities and limitations and to act in the way that is needed. Competencies have as goal that it can be effectively used in different contexts. Fleming (in Rowanhill, 2006) supports this concept by describing a meta-competency as something that allows someone to locate a particular competency within a larger framework of understanding. Toolsema (2003) states that meta-competencies make the acquisition of new competencies possible and make present competencies more adaptive and efficient. Chivers and Cheetman (1996) describe meta-competencies as an ability to manage an ability. Meta-competencies thus reflect cognitive processes of a higher order, such as creativity and analysis (Chivers & Cheetman, 1996). Therefore, to make the concept easy to understand, it is the ability to use different competencies in the context of certain behaviour, which can be described as meta-competency (Scharnhorst, 2004). It is not about answering questions posed by predictable tasks in known words. It is about dealing with uncertainty and incomplete evidence, asking the right questions, and developing the means to resolve problems (Scharnhorst, 2006). At its most basic, it may be seen as learning to learn, flexible transfer and application of knowledge and skills across contexts or thinking outside the box (Fleming in Rowanhill, 2006). Meta-competency is situated above the other competencies in the tetrahedron (figure 4). This means that meta-competency can only be developed when the other competencies are available. A summary of the social and cognitive competencies in literature is included in appendix 1. The tables in this appendix provide an overview of different social and cognitive competencies and their sub-competencies per author. This concludes the theoretical exploration of the concept. In the next paragraphs choices, based on the literature, are described to form a competency research model.


30

3.7 Choices for competency research model In the previous paragraphs aspects of the concept of competency are described. In this research the term competency will be used, as the term reflects the underlying attributes of behaviour, which an engineer needs to have to operate in the semiconductor market and medical device market. The focus is on how behaviour(s) support the work of employees. Not on what the engineer is able to do and therefore, the US approach towards competency development fits this focus. Both the US and UK approach have the purpose of improving the human performance at work in common, but the US approach focuses on searching competent behaviour. The behavioural aspect and the underlying attributes of behaviour are important and therefore the input-based approach is used to describe these attributes. The work of engineers fit the input-based approach best based on the fact that the tasks of engineers are complex and difficult to define. The focus in this research is on underlying attributes of competent behaviour and therefore, it is important to have insight in the individual competencies of an engineer. In core competencies the strategy of an organisation is important and in organisational competencies the focus in on the combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, motives and learning capabilities of a group. As the individual employee is the focus in this research, rather than what a group can create in projects or what the strategy of the organisation is, these competencies do not play a role in this research. Thus, the focus is on individual competencies that are specific for an engineer in tasks and situations to make sure that what business demands is taken into account for the performance. However, it is important to understand that individual competencies are part of core competencies. Core competencies provide the opportunity to add specific knowledge to the products that cannot be copied by its competitors. This specific knowledge is within people and therefore, is part of individual competencies. This is also the case for organisational competencies. By using individual competencies a group will create surplus value. Therefore, in the development of individual competencies it is important to know the competencies of other individuals of the group and of the organisation. The competency model that has to be chosen for Philips ETG has the goal to help develop, measure and manage the competencies. It has to define what competencies an engineer should possess for the semiconductor and medical market so that future development can be identified. Different authors argue to use a specific competency model for organisations purposes. This model fits within the organisational context and can be anchored in Philips ETG. It also provides a framework for the development of competencies that are crucial for the organisation. However, it is difficult to build such a model without the theoretical background of generic competency models. Hence, in this research the strategy is to use a generic model and specify it to the situation. This will allow guidance for the research and it will result in an applicable tool for the organisation. For the research the model of Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005) will be used. It is a generic model and it provides different dimensions, which are formulated based on the strengths of the different approaches towards competency. Although Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005) describe the four competencies as dimensions, which cannot be separated, in this research the four dimensions will be defined as competencies with a different focus. Functional- and meta-competencies are not taken into account in this research, because functional competencies focus on the technical and mechanical elements of the work and meta-competencies are competencies to manage the other competencies. The functional competencies of engineers are already made explicit for Philips ETG and the meta-competencies can only be developed after the development of functional, social and cognitive competencies. Therefore, the focus in this research is on the social and cognitive competencies. Social competencies are defined as social skills that will allow an individual to interact and collaborate with others and to build and sustain relationships. Cognitive competencies provide the ability to use work-related knowledge in the appropriate situations. In the following paragraph this competency research model will be described and social and cognitive competencies will be presented.


31

3.8 Defining the competency research model The competency research model is based on the generic model of Delamare le Deist and Winterton (2005), which is presented in figure 5. The social and cognitive competencies can be defined as non-technical components and the functional competency as the technical competency. On the right side a collection of non-technical competencies is indicated and on the left side the technical competency can be found.

Figure 5: Competency research model non-technical competencies

This model will support the investigation although theoretical insights of the social and cognitive competencies should be added to the competency research model. An overview of social and cognitive competencies that are found in literature is included in appendix 1. These competencies form the basis on which the competency research model is developed. For the competency research model criteria are used to select the competencies. These are the following three criteria:

• The work of an engineer as context description; • The research question; • The similarities between the definitions of the competencies.

The description of the work of an engineer and the research question are used to analyse if a competency is useful in this research. Further, it is analysed which definitions of the competencies are similar or cover the same area of activities. Results from this analysis are presented in the tables in the next sub-paragraphs.

3.8.1 Social competencies The social competencies of the competency research model are presented in table 1 on the next page. This subdivision provides an overview of competencies, as described in literature (appendix 1). These competencies will be further explained below the table.


32

Table 1: Social (sub)-competencies of the competency research model

Social competencies competency research model Competency Sub-competencies Social contacts Self-efficacy Networking Network in own organisation

Network in organisation of client Sociability

Collaboration Communication Oral communication

Written communication Oral presentation Listening Sensitivity Negotiation

Empathy Adaptability Social contacts is the first mentioned competency and is about being able to manage social contacts (Ministerie van OCW, 2000). This competency is chosen, because it demonstrates the interaction with others, which is necessary in the work of an engineer and is described as social contacts from now on. A sub-competency of having social contacts is self-efficacy, which Mallinckrodt and Wei (2005) define as the belief that one can initiate social contacts and can

Documents

Thesis social and cognitive competencies Philips ETG libra…essay.utwente.nl/57722/1/scriptie_Cramer_van_der_Zwaal.pdfCarin Cramer Marieke van der Zwaal 5 Acknowledgement In March